MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2944584146 · doi:10.34064/khnum1-50.04

Composer – Artist: The role of pianist Hsu Fei Ping in the creative activity of Huang An Lun

2018· article· en· W2944584146 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tian Song

Notice bibliographique

RevueProblems of Interaction Between Arts Pedagogy and the Theory and Practice of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueAdvanced Technologies in Various Fields
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPianoPing (video games)MusicalGeniusPerforming artsCreativityArtTheme (computing)Visual artsPsychologyLiteratureArt historyComputer scienceSocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background. The article is dedicated to the creative communication of two outstanding Chinese musicians – a pianist Hsu Fei Ping and a composer Huang An Lun. Complete mutual understanding facilitated their communication. Practically in all his programs, the pianist included the music of Western European and Chinese composers. Critics especially noted that Hsu Fei-Ping had the musical penetration, brilliance and poetry of interpretations. Among many Chinese pianists, he was recognized as the best interpreter of piano works by Huang An Lun. This musician has a special role in the work of Huan An Lun, being not only the “addressee” and the first performer, but also the inspirer of many composer’s opuses. The context of the creative intercourse of Huang An Lun and Hsu Fei Ping is also interesting because some of the composer’s works were written on the initiative of the outstanding Chinese pianist. Objectives. The purpose of the article is to reveal the role of the outstanding pianist Hsu Fei Ping in the creativity of Huang An Lun and the features of his performing interpretation the composer’s piano works. Methods. The research methodology necessary for disclosure of the selected theme is based on an integrated scientific approach combining the principles of musical-theoretical and performing analysis. Results. Hsu Fei-Ping is rightfully regarded as one of the most brilliant Chinese pianists who made themselves known in the 20th century. In this paper the life and career of the musician is considered, a general assessment of his creative achievements is given. It is argued that the creative cooperation and friendship of Hsu Fei-Ping with his compatriot and peer Huang An-Lun was due to life circumstances. The fate of both musicians had many common “points of intersection”: both musicians were of the same age, both in their youth showed uncommon interest in learning national and western musical art. The Cultural Revolution became a tragic watershed in their lives, which, however, made it possible to get even closer to the folklore environment and to feel the pain and suffering of the Chinese people at that time. Both musicians left China in the 1970s, having received education and achieved success in developed western countries: Hsu Fei-Ping – in the USA, Huang An Lun – in Canada. It is quite natural that the communication of such bright individuals, who have gone through the difficult path of development, provided an opportunity for mutual creative enrichment. The pianist promoted Huang An-Lun’s piano music in Israel, the USA, Canada, Russia and other countries, recorded CDs with works by the composer. In 2001, in Shanghai, and then in Hong Kong, discs with a recording of the piano cycle of Huang An-Lun’s “30 Pieces in the Popular Cybei Style” were released. In the same year, he recorded in Moscow the disc with Third Dance Poem, op. 40, by Huang An Lun. Hsu Pei Fing played the piece at the Rubinstein International Piano Competition in Israel, where he became the winner. In 1990, the piece by Huang An Lun created a similar sensation at a festival dedicated to the music of contemporary composers at the Walter Concert Hall in Toronto. A few years later, Hsu Pei Fing performed the piece at Carnegie Hall in New York. The largest composition by Huang An-Lun dedicated to Hsu Pei-Fing was Concerto No. 2 in C minor op. 57 for piano and orchestra. Its premiere took place on June 12, 1999 at the stage of the Shanghai Music Hall. The Shanghai Symphony Orchestra was conducted by Huang An-Lun himself, the piano part was performed by Hsu Fei-Ping. With the Russian Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Konstantin Krymets, the pianist performed the second edition of the Concerto. The poem for piano and orchestra “Gulangyuy” op. 66 was written in memory of Hsu Fei Ping. The composer embodied in music the image of the birthplace of the outstanding Chinese pianist, Gulangyu Island, also known as “Piano Island”. Conclusions. Hsu Fei-Ping was for Huang An-Lun a kind of “beacon” in the field of piano music. Most of the composer’s piano works were focused on the phenomenal pianism of his friend. Being an outstanding performer of the West European classical and romantic repertoire, Hsu Fei Ping remained in the memory of musicians, first of all, as the inspirer and the best interpreter of piano works by Huang An Lun. The image of this remarkable pianist is captured in “Dance Poem No. 3” op. 40, Concert No. 2 in C minor op. 57, Poem for piano and orchestra “Gulangyuy” op. 66. Hsu Fei Ping brilliantly embodied in his performance one of the main ideas of the work of Huang An-Lun – the theme of man’s collision with forces of reality hostile to him. At the core of his performing drama is the conflict between the sinister, aggressive and lyrically quivering human beginning. It is represented by the pianist through the sound realization of various types of melodies, rhythms, textures, and the richest timbre palette. Hsu Fei Ping’s deep interpretations of Huang An Lun’s music, built on maximum polarization of images and expressive means, are the best confirmation of the mutual enrichment of the artistic worlds of two musicians, whose creative ways and convictions evolved in a similar way, which allowed them to understand each other completely.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,006
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,019

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,003
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0000,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,369
Écart entre enseignants0,342 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueProblems of Interaction Between Arts Pedagogy and the Theory and Practice of EducationMême sujetAdvanced Technologies in Various FieldsTravaux en français237 207